Editor,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Paul DeMeester’s excellent essay titled “Former presidents cannot be tried on impeachment charges,” in the Jan. 29 issue of the Daily Journal. If anybody should know what he is talking about, it is Mr. DeMeester. However, for the sake of argument, I'd like to offer some other points of law regarding the issue of the impeachment of Trump. They are:
1). The formal proceedings to impeach began when Trump was still in office. The House voted to impeach Trump while he was still in office.
That’s like when a suspect is charged with a crime, there is an arraignment and a preliminary hearing first. The legal proceedings have started;
2). The Articles of Impeachment state that there are two penalties for being impeached by a two-thirds vote of the Senate: removal from
office and “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or profit, under the United States.” In most states, including in California, under the penal code, many crimes have two punishments, a). imprisonment; b). a dollar amount fine.
However, in most cases, judges only sentence the criminal to imprisonment and don’t apply the penalty of a fine. This could work for the Senate.
The point is, since Trump is already out of office because he lost the election, then, the penalty of “removal from office” is moot now, but, the penalty of “disqualification to hold office” is still a legal and viable judgment against Trump by the Senate.
Michael Oberg
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(11) comments
Democrats are a one trick pony. Hate the Orange Man. Democrats are only attempting to make it impossible for Republican's to pick their representative for president. It will not work because it is unconstitutional. Trump is not going anywhere, nor his millions of supporters. No matter what people who know nothing like Michael write. I would just sum that up as wishful thinking on Mr. Obergs part. He should prepare himself for 4 years of rallies and the condemnation of the Biden Administration. Time for a little offense on our part.
"Hate the Orange Man" Well it looks like you got one third of that statement right. Orange is the part you got right. Man should be replaced with Child. Hate him, no, hate what he has done but not him, he is not worth hating.
Excellent letter, Mr. Oberg. Millions of people agree with you!
Blah, blah, blah, another day, another letter writer fantasy perpetuating hate and divisiveness with an inane argument. I guess that’s the only way they can divert from Herr Biden’s disastrous policies.
Mr. Oberg
A very good friend of mine often quoted his Irish father who said to him, "Boyo, analogy is a weak form of argument." And so it would seem with your comparison of the federal impeachment process to California's criminal justice system.
Articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate... this part of the process is similar to being charged in a state court. Impeachment then moves to a trial. However, as noted by you, in California, a preliminary hearing would take place before a trial is convened. Sticking with your analogy, when did that part of the process occur? Oh, that's right... it didn't. Where were the hearings, witness testimony, etc. that California requires before charges are moved to the trial phase of prosecution?
The analogy breaks down further with your discussion of the consequences of a criminal trial in California. You are correct in stating that a sitting president convicted at an impeachment trial, convened by the Senate, may be removed from office and disqualified from holding future office. However, the penalties for a conviction in California, i.e. imprisonment and/or fine are inapplicable to impeachment.
I'm guessing... and it is just a guess... that most states have their own impeachment process. California does. However, unlike the federal impeachment process, California officials... regardless of whether they are convicted or acquitted at a state impeachment trial... are still subject to prosecution in the state courts.
I'm not an attorney, and maybe I've got this all wrong. But your analogy suggests you would prefer a criminal trial of Donald Trump. If that's the case, can you provide the legal argument for moving in that direction?
The Constitution only talks about the "President" being impeached and tried - not an ex-President. Once out of office the only legal remedy is a civil court action. But there's no chance Trump would be convicted or have a conviction sustained because he said in his speech to the crowd of 30,000 that they should go to the capitol and demonstrate peacefully which 99.9% of them did. If urging a crowd to fight for their political beliefs is a crime every democrat would be in handcuffs.
You didn't hear, or grasp, what Trump shouted to his eager followers? Earwax, perhaps, or simply trouble with reality? Not all that unusual for Republicans, I understand.
Jorg! You're back... I was worried, but I see you have returned... You have suggested Trump supporters did not hear what he said during his speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. Could you address the following?
Did impeachment advocates like yourself actually watch President Trump's speech four weeks ago? True enough... he told those peacefully assembled they would have to "fight" to take their country back. But what do you think would happen if you did an online search for every time a politician used the word "fight" in a speech? The search would possibly crash your laptop. Think about the number of times we have heard Senator Jones declare "I'm a fighter" or Congressman Smith proclaim "I will fight to protect your livelihoods and rights." Too many times to count...
What else does Trump say? He tells the assembled that they should cheer on their brave congressmen and senators (presumably the office holders challenging the legality of the voting process in some states) and to remain strong. He also mentioned the protestors should march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol to make their voices heard.
Trump's Jan. 6 remarks were politically charged. No doubt. However, his remarks were not a legal enticement to stage a riot. Again, did you actually watch President Trump's speech four weeks ago or did you just form an opinion after listening to MSM sound bites? If it's the latter, then it was more than just earwax preventing you from hearing what was said...
No, Ray, - I watched Trump, listened, heard him and began worrying what might happen once his naive followers heard what he said. But, I didn't anticipate the magnitude of the reaction, and how violently those idiots would respond to their leader's word. Why don't you wake up, Ray, realize what's happening in this country, and stop trying to explain me away. I'm no threat to anybody.
Jorg
Yep... it was more than just earwax preventing you from hearing what was said.
Not only do you have trouble with your hearing and sight, your math stinks also. There were a lot more than 30 people rioting and pillaging the Capitol.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.